Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 3, 2007 <br />stated that when people invest in or sell their property, outdoor storage <br />should be allowed as an accessory use or by CUP. He noted that an IUP <br />goes away over time. <br />Blesener stated that the IUP is an option that the Council is looking at as it <br />would give the City more control. He noted that time and money that the <br />City spends on code enforcement related to outdoor storage in Ryan <br />Industrial Park. <br />Griffith pointed out that the City can place conditions on a CUP. He felt <br />that the City will not see the level of investment it would like under the <br />IUP. <br />Uldis Erdmanis, Buck Blacktop, felt that the City should look at the big <br />picture and should not micromanage businesses in the Park. Erdmanis felt <br />that the City was trying to develop a different set of rules for each property <br />in the Park. Erdmanis pointed out that redevelopment is not instantaneous <br />and occurs in response to economic pressures. He felt that while the City <br />is trying to reduce the amount of outdoor storage allowed, it is not letting <br />the properly owners use their land. Erdmanis reported that the Ryan <br />Indusri•ial Park property owners do not want a junk yard. He again <br />suggested that the City consider the big picture. He also suggested that the <br />Park property owners need to spend more time together to work this out, <br />stating that they are just as disappointed in the condition of some of the <br />properties as the City is. <br />Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, indicated that the number one concern of <br />the Park property owners is the City's consideration to change outdoor <br />storage from a CUP to an IUP. Black felt that this would constitute a <br />taking without any compensation to the property owners. Black indicated <br />that State Statute clearly defines an IUP as a permit that will expire over <br />time. <br />Keis felt that a CUP and IUP were close to the same thing, noting that an <br />IUP would stay in effect as long as an owner held the property. <br />Black pointed out that a CUP would stay in effect as long as the conditions <br />of the CUP are complied with regardless of whether or not the property is <br />sold. An IUP has a termination date. Black felt this would take away an <br />existing use of the property. Black indicated that the Park property <br />owners understand the City's concerns and would like to work with the <br />City. He also noted that the City has a process for revoking a CUP. Black <br />felt that the City should keep working within the rules it has and should <br />exercise its authority under those rules. He felt to go to an IUP would be <br />out of line. <br />